Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Thousands of Australians have shared the Senate's outrage at the behaviour of PwC over recent years. This is a firm that used confidential government information to help some of the world's biggest multinationals avoid tax—a consultancy firm that wreaked at least $2.5 million in fees in doing so. Since the discovery of this debacle, PwC has been out of government consulting for just 16 months. On 15 July, the Department of Finance green lighted PwC back into government work despite the fact that there are investigations underway by the AFP and others. You have made no comment on Finance's decision to green light PwC. Minister, do you support the green lighting of PwC back into government contracting—yes or no?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for the question and for her ongoing interest in the area of the use of consultants and contractors, alongside the very important work that Senator O'Neill has been doing throughout the last term in this area. Of course, the issues around PwC were extremely concerning to the government, and we made comments at the time. As you say, there are a number of ongoing investigations, so I don't want to get into those. Ultimately it is appropriate that ministers are not involved in procurement decisions. It's a big part of my role as finance minister. I get a lot of feedback about how people would like ministers to get more involved in procurement. I think there are very good reasons why we don't.

My job is to make sure that there is a process around who procures with government and how people can engage with government to win contracts and that those arrangements are proper and appropriate. The decisions about who is eligible to procure from government is a matter quite rightly left to the Public Service. That may be the Department of Finance, through the work that they do essentially coordinating the procurement guidance across the Public Service. That answers your question about that. It is a matter for the department. I've had a number of briefings with the department on their decision. As you'll know, it was a voluntary agreement that was reached for PwC not to seek contracts from government for a period of time as Finance undertook some detailed work and sought commitments and assurances from them. That work has been completed. The advice to me from Finance is that, with all the assurances and undertakings that PwC had given, it was appropriate to allow them to bid for work. That does not necessarily mean they will get work. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't hear an answer to my question in relation to PwC from your point of view as a minister. Under current laws, unlike 20 other countries around the world that actually do regulate these issues, the government can't ban a delinquent, unethical firm like PwC. Incredibly, at present, it relies on the wrongdoer to agree to ban itself from government contracts. That's like asking a criminal to agree to go to jail. What a joke. Do you support the Greens' bill introduced today to legislate banning unethical, dodgy contractors like PwC from government work so you've actually got the power to do what you should do? (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following the PwC matter and the issues about it being raised, the Department of Finance has done a huge amount of work to improve those arrangements. There's the signing on to the Supplier Code of Conduct now. That didn't exist prior to the PwC matter. This sets out clear behavioural expectations and places a positive duty on suppliers to take proactive action to discourage breaches of the code. Also the notification of significant events clauses in standard Commonwealth contracts were put in place from May 2023. This again provides positive obligations for suppliers to notify the Commonwealth of significant events, including adverse comments or findings by legal or professional bodies. So I would say we have significantly strengthened the government's ability to deal with these matters when they arise. It is a much stronger way than existed before the PwC matter.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor went to the election promising to cut government consultancy spending. Since then, you have been boasting about savings on consulting contracts. Yet the government's very own data shows that in 2024-25 Labor in fact spent more than the last year of the Morrison government on consultants. Labor's excessive outsourcing of public sector work to the private sector isn't just wasting taxpayer money. As you said in an answer earlier today, it's eroding Australia's Public Service. Why have you broken your promise? (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We haven't. Indeed, we took $5.3 billion in savings from departments in relation to external labour and non-wage expenses in our first term. We took a policy to the last election of $6.4 billion in savings. We have seen a dramatic decrease in the use of the big four consultants compared to what we saw under the former government. And we have rebuilt the Public Service. We've rebuilt it with permanent public servants doing ongoing Public Service work. We have done a range of other things to make it clear to departments about when we think using consultants, outsourcing or using external labour is appropriate. I totally reject any view that we haven't invested in the Public Service. We have, we will continue to do so and we will deliver the $6.4 billion in savings we took to the last campaign over the use of consultants. (Time expired)